Lessons From Charlottesville
August 8, 2018
On Aug. 12, 2017, a group of white supremacists gathered in Charlottesville, Virginia. The day was a disaster, with violence in the streets and Heather Heyer murdered by a man who drove his car into a crowd of anti-racist protesters. The ACLU of Virginia had represented Jason Kessler, the march organizer, in a First Amendment lawsuit when city officials attempted to move the location of the event. The ACLU’s representation of Kessler has renewed debate, both inside and outside the organization, about its role as a prominent defender of both free speech and racial justice. With white supremacy rearing its head, can the same organization effectively advance both principles?
Dennis Parker, director of the ACLU Racial Justice Program, and Ben Wizner, director of the organization’s Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project, reflect on the ongoing debate.
This Episode Covers the Following Issues
Related Content
-
Minnesota Supreme CourtNov 2024
Free Speech
Energy Transfer LP v. Greenpeace International, Unicorn Riot
This case in the Minnesota Supreme Court asks whether the MFFIA's protections apply to newsgatherers even if they are alleged to have engaged in trespassing while newsgathering. The ACLU’s State Supreme Court Initiative, alongside the ACLU of Minnesota and law firm Biersdorf & Associations, filed a brief representing Unicorn Riot, a media organization that covered protests of the Dakota Access Pipeline. The brief argues that MFFIA and constitutional reporter’s privileges, under both the U.S. and Minnesota constitutions, protect Unicorn Riot from having to comply with Energy Transfer’s subpoenas.Status: Ongoing -
Press ReleaseNov 2024
National Security
Free Speech
Ahead of House Vote on Bill that Would Stifle Dissent, ACLU Sounds Alarm Again
WASHINGTON — The House of Representatives is set to vote Thursday on the Stop Terror-Financing and Tax Penalties on American Hostages Act, a bill that would give the incoming Trump administration new power to muzzle, punish, and effectively shut down tax-exempt organizations without transparency or appropriate due process. This misguided piece of legislation would impact a wide range of tax-exempt organizations, including nonprofits, universities, and even news outlets. Last week, Congress narrowly blocked the bill based on due process concerns and significant constituent opposition. In just a few days, over 100,000 people sent messages to their members asking them to oppose H.R. 9495. Last week’s vote was brought up under suspension, which requires a two-thirds majority to pass. Tomorrow’s vote will come under regular order and only requires a simple majority. The American Civil Liberties Union led a coalition of over 180 non-profit organizations — including Planned Parenthood, AFL-CIO, United Auto Workers, and the NAACP — in a letter to Congress outlining why this bill is not only dangerous, but unnecessary. The letter also laid out how future administrations could abuse it to lock in power, silence dissent, and go after disfavored groups and vulnerable communities. “Every time we give the president new powers and more authority to act alone, we create an open invitation for abuse by the executive branch,” said Kia Hamadanchy, senior federal policy counsel at ACLU. “While the ACLU would oppose this legislation no matter who the president is, and there is no question it could be weaponized against groups on both ends of the ideological spectrum, the rhetoric we saw on the campaign trail from the president-elect is even more reason for Congress to reject this bill.” H.R. 9495 joins two unrelated measures together: one allowing the Treasury Department to withhold tax-exempt status from any nonprofit it accuses of being a “terrorist-supporting organization” — without being required to disclose the evidence against it — and another, non-controversial measure, which would offer tax relief to Americans imprisoned unjustly abroad. The latter provision already passed the Senate as a stand-alone bill, and as the coalition letter notes, none of the groups oppose these tax-relief provisions. In fact, not a single member of Congress has thus far raised any opposition to these provisions. The fastest way for it to become law is for the House to simply pass the Senate bill. -
Press ReleaseNov 2024
Free Speech
ACLU Urges Senate to Oppose Bill That Will Threaten Political Speech on College Campuses
WASHINGTON – The American Civil Liberties Union sent a letter to the Senate today strongly urging them to continue to block S. 4127, the Antisemitism Awareness Act, which threatens to censor political speech critical of Israel on college campuses under the guise of addressing antisemitism. “Instead of addressing antisemitism on campus, this misguided legislation would punish protected political speech,” said Jenna Leventoff, senior policy counsel at the ACLU. “At a time when civil rights enforcement on campus could not be more critical, this bill risks politicizing these vital protections by censoring legitimate political speech that criticizes the Israeli government. The right to criticize government actions is the most fundamental protection provided by the First Amendment – and this includes the actions of foreign governments. The Senate must continue to block this bill and protect free speech.” The bill, which was passed by the House of Representatives in May despite bipartisan opposition, directs the Department of Education to consider an overbroad definition of antisemitism that encompasses protected political speech when investigating allegations of discrimination under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act. The ACLU has warned this could pressure colleges and universities to restrict student and faculty speech critical of the Israeli government and its military operations out of fear of the college losing federal funding. Courts have already found that applying the IHRA definition of antisemitism to harassment policies likely violates the First Amendment. In October 2024, the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas found in Students for Justice in Palestine v. Abbott that an executive order directing all Texas higher education institutions to update and enforce campus free speech policies to address antisemitic speech and apply the IHRA definition of antisemitism likely violates the First Amendment. The judge found that “the incorporation of [the IHRA definition of antisemitism] is viewpoint discrimination” because it makes the utterance of specific content punishable. Further, as the ACLU’s letter to Congress makes clear, federal law already prohibits antisemitic discrimination and harassment by federally funded entities, and the Antisemitism Awareness Act is not needed to protect Jewish students from discrimination. -
Press ReleaseNov 2024
National Security
Free Speech
ACLU Cheers House Vote Blocking H.R. 9495
WASHINGTON — The House of Representatives blocked H.R. 9495, the Stop Terror-Financing and Tax Penalties on American Hostages Act, 256-145. Because the House of Representatives was attempting to move the bill on suspension it required a two-thirds majority in order to pass. This legislation would have granted the Secretary of Treasury the unilateral power to investigate and effectively shut down any tax-exempt organization — including news outlets, universities, and civil society groups — by stripping them of their tax-exempt status based on an unilateral accusation of wrongdoing. Last month, the ACLU and a diverse array of over 130 other tax-exempt organizations — including human rights, reproductive health, and immigrants’ rights groups — wrote to Congress urging them to vote no. The following is a statement from Kia Hamadanchy, senior policy counsel at ACLU: “The freedom to dissent without fear of government retribution is a vital part of any well-functioning democracy, and now is not the time to grant the executive branch new powers to investigate and functionally shut down and silence its critics. Tonight enough members of the House voted to block giving the executive branch new broad and easily abused powers. This is only the first such battle we expect to see in the coming years, and we will continue to remain vigilant in working to ensure that the authority of the executive branch is appropriately limited.”